Careful reading of Russian foreign newspapers and magazines led us to the conclusion that the majority of our home-grown federalists have only a vague idea of the subject of their dreams: they do not understand either the legal form of the federation, or the conditions for the emergence of healthy federalism, or the history of federal statehood. They see in all this some final form of “political freedom”, which supposedly should satisfy and reconcile everyone, and, according to the old Russian habit, they decide: “The more freedom, the better!” And therefore, the federation is included in the list of “everything high and beautiful” and fits into the program of Russian health improvement.
Let us first establish the legal nature of the federation. The Latin word "fedus" means agreement and alliance, and further - order and law. In the science of state law, a federation is a union of states based on an agreement and establishing their legal, orderly unity. This means that federation is possible only where there are several independent states striving for unification. The Federation starts from the multitude (or at least from the two) and moves towards unity and unity. This is not a centrifugal process, but a centripetal one. The Federation does not dismember (does not differentiate, does not divide, does not fragment), but articulates (integrates, unifies, merges). Historically, it happened that several small states that had already taken shape politically and tried to lead an independent life became convinced that external dangers and internal difficulties required them to unite with other similar states - articulation, fusion, integration. And so they formed a single state, concluding an agreement with each other on what exactly this unity would consist of and in what legal order it would be carried out. This unity is usually proclaimed as “eternal.”
This is exactly what happened in Switzerland, where, in the fight against strong neighbors, first in 1291 the small states (cantons) of Uri, Schwyz, Nidwalden and Obwalden strategically united and then wrote a “letter of union”. In 1332, the canton of Lucerne joined their federation. In 1352 Zurich, Glarus and Zug annexed. In 1353 Bern joined “forever”. In 1415, the canton of Aargau was recaptured from Austria and annexed. From this year, the “Swiss Oath-Partnership” began its annual federal congresses. Nowadays there are only 26 such cantons (with half-cantons).
This is how the United States united much later. At first there were 13 English colonies, independent from each other, and each of them already had its own special political and constitutional history. In 1775 they united strategically in the fight against England. In 1781 and then in 1787, these states developed their own federal constitution, that is, they were already united as a state. They were later joined by Louisiana, purchased from the French. Alaska was purchased from Russia. “Territories” were conquered from Mexico, and the Antilles from Spain. Today the federal state consists of 47 states, three “territories” and and a number of colonies. In a similar manner, 25 German independent states and free cities united in 1871, having led an independent political life for centuries. They created a united Germany as an "eternal confederation".
In 1867, the three English provinces of North America (Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) united into “a single and independent power, under the name of Canada.”
In 1885-1886, under British sovereignty, the six Australian colonies, New Zealand and the Fiji Islands federally united into the state of “Australasia”.
This is the typical emergence of a classical federal state: from bottom to top, from small to large, from multitude to unity: - this is a process of political accretion, that is, a purposeful movement from fragmentation to mutually nourishing unity. At the same time, federal constitutions establish in what way politically merging small states retain their “independence” and in what way they will lose it; Usually, independence is granted to them in everything that concerns each of them individually and that is not dangerous for unity. And if subsequently the union state begins to exceed its competence and interfere in local affairs, supporters of local independence refer to the federal constitution and say: “We are federalists! We do not have a unitary state, but a federal one! Long live legally recognized local independence!” Hence, the idea of “federalism” receives, in addition to its main, unifying and centripetal meaning, also the opposite connotation: the undiminished originality of the parts, their independence within legal limits, their organic initiative in the bowels of a large union. It is important to note that this “reverse connotation” has a political meaning, not a legal one, because it concerns not a constitutional norm, but its practical application and implementation.
Let us further establish that federation is neither the only nor the most important way of merging small states with each other. History shows that small states often merged into a single large one - not on the basis of federation, but on the basis of absorption and complete fusion into a unitary power.
Let us remember how France, in three or four centuries, grew into a modern unity, consisting initially of one kingdom, one electorate, 26 duchies, 6 principalities, one margraviate, one free county, 77 counties, 19 vice-counties, 14 “possessions”, one “marquisate” ", one "captalate" and 13 spiritual possessions (of which some later went to Germany and Switzerland). Revolutionary "Girondinism" was the last outbreak of disintegration in France. By the beginning of the 19th century, there were almost no “seams” left from all this multitude of states.
Italy back in the mid-19th century (1815-1866) consisted of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Lombard-Venetian Kingdom (under Austria), the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Duchy of Savoy, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Modena, the Duchy of Parma, the Principality of Piedmont and the Church State. How long ago was it? And where is it all now? In a united Italy, only “names” remained. and "titles"!
History still remembers that Spain, several hundred years ago, split into three kingdoms: Castile, Aragon and Grenada; that there were other states on its territory - Asturias, Leon, Navarre, the Margraviate of Barcelona... Everything had long since merged into a single Spain.
Great Britain, fused together on its island, still retains some political seams.
In all these cases, small states united, not by federation, but by being absorbed into one of them or merging. Nations were assimilated and peoples ended the period of political differentiation and semi-civil wars with a unitary political form. It is stupid and ridiculous to say that the unitary form of the state is becoming a thing of the past. It is absurd to claim that all modern "empires" are disintegrate: for some disintegrate, others arise. This has always been the case: let us at least remember the history of Spain, Portugal, Holland, England, Germany, Turkey and Italy.
Thus, history knows two different ways in which larger powers emerged. Both start with a few or many individual states. One way is a contractual association (federation); another way is political inclusion, economic and cultural fusion into a unitary state.
However, along with legally strong and politically viable unions of states, history also knows imaginary, fictitious “federations” that did not arise in an organic order - from below, but were artificially and imitatively implanted from above. We call them "pseudo-federations".